Infallibility No guard Against Stupidity

#284 by sattar2

Now don`t you pull that emotional blackmail stuff on me!

If I had to look at that little girl`s face, the answer is NO. I would never hurt her.

But, if I was playing with a joystick, I wouldn`t care who was underneath.

Hope that answers.

zeemax (#249):

There are lots of wimps and low-lives out there; the world is full of them. It is somewhat irrelevent to bring them into discussion.

The point is ... what will YOU do with this 1-year old girl? Are you going to hurt her for someone else`s wrongs? Let`s not dodge the issue at hand ...

PM:
and the Qu`raan concurs with you

but seriously:

After the first condition of having belief, unshakeable belief as an ``a priori`` condition, the Qu`raan alway addresses the Believers only...and righfully so.

The quraan is NOT for non-believers. One cannot aspire to read & ``understand`` Qur`aaN as a non-believer.

The very first lines are `` This book is for those who believe, and nurse no doubts in their minds......``

From then on the Qur`aan has time & time again exhorts the reader to observe nature, study , open eyes, gives examples of how much Allah values those who pursue to unlock the secrets of the Universe........

and muslims are not whining ``sour grapes`` either...they have seen it all, been there, done that...ALL through a unique blend of Faith and Reason

If it was done once, it can always be done again.

And wasn`t Khouri, whose `theological reasoning` is used, writing waay before 9-11?

echo: Just so you know, if I ever had to choose, it would be the `rational` Islam of masadi that I would. Religion will always contain elements of the mystical (otherwise, it wouldn`t be religion). I would oppose any attempt to completely divorce religious belief from Reason, as this, IMHO, amounts to the grossest forms of nihilism.

echo:

It`s semantics, yes, and interesting in what it says about straying from roots (of words), or changing meanings.

But, to be sure, `logy`, or `logical` as suffixes have never had the same meaning as that connoted by just plain ``logical`` -- c.f ``biological`` and ``psychological``, where the suffix merely connotes `a study/knowledge of.`

PM:
and look how I ( amd perhaps) you too have been 9/11-ed, ever so stealthily, by the terrorism of language.

I, in my ignorance, trying to coin words and now I just ``discovered`` that it already exists!

and you called it /Theological Reasoning [ what a hoot!]; a redundancy if ever there was!

Theo-LOGICAL: Religious-Reason is enough, why add Reasoning after Theological?

So you see how much ``we`` rationalists are conditioned by our upbringing?

We subconsciosly refuse to SEE /reason in /Theological .

Quite entertaining , isn`t it and terrifying as well..to know the possibilities of not-knowing
what we know not.

Are we really incharge of ourselves?

echo:
The article, in quoting Khouri, does indeed highlight the problem that attends many inter-faith debates-- one of lack of a common language, or, to put it as Khouri did, the use of ``theological reason`` as opposed to plain vanilla reason.

My debate with masadi need not be afflicted by this lack of a common language. Every now and then, Masadi does in fact tend pull a Manuel and bring in the idiocies in Christianity, as if I`ve ever even called anything Islamic stupid. But by and large, he CLAIMS to be arguing from a reasonable, logical standpoint, but has his basics (for example the correct, Boolean, use of the word ``AND``) wrong, or is deliberately obfuscating because he`s afraid of the implications of my contentions, however innocuous.

echo sahib:

I don`t know Plato`s chairs from his tables, nor have I read the first chapter of Treatise on Falana dimkhana Reason.

And I am the first to admit, as I did many moons ago to you, that the spice of life is to be found beyond reason.

(One caveat: The `spice` never offends reason, though it may well transcend it-- that is, lie in a province where reason does not or cannot operate.)

What I do have a certain sensibility for charlatans trying to wrap unreason in the garb of Reason, or refusing to take their supposedly logical arguments to their logical conclusion.

I can have no beef with those who don`t make claims to reasonableness and Logical consistency to begin with.

---

Thanks for the article.

masadi:

Holy cow! A 1256-word and all i get that actually adresses the debated is:

``Next, if you want to talk about redundancy, which does not apply in this case [``because I, masadi says so-- never mind PM reasoning and analogy``], let us talk about the oft repeated copy pasted genealogies in the Bible and the four gospels that repeat more or less the same story with contradictions thrown all over the place ..``

And this AFTER I`ve repreatedly given you my stance on the bible/Christianity!!

And I`m the one who cannot comprehend simple statements!? That`s rich, man!!

re. ``Further since the prophet and his companions belonged to earlier generations, their judgment or what they did or did not do is not our concern, our concern is the message of God, i.e. the Quran:``

Please learn to separate fact from opinion, masadi, and also how to stop Begging the Question.

``[2.134] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.``

Great verse. But it does NOTHING to inform on the debate. It`s a classic Red Herring.

``Your epistle story is similarly pathetically ignorant. The Quran talks about obeying the messenger whose ONLY role as messenger is to deliver the message for the simple reason that you cannot obey God, who does not talk directly to people...Without obeying the message which comes through a messenger``

Dimwit, I`m not reading challenged. Apparently you are. I`ve accepted this interpretation, but it leads to a redunancy: It would be one thing if the verse said ``...Obey Allah, whose will is revealed through His Messenger``. But the verse (58:13) actually says ``... Obey Allah AND his Messenger``

``Nowhere does the Quran say obey Muhammed``.
Muhammed was the Rasool. Your contention is moot at best. But that is not the point being debated at present. It is about redundancy. If it indeed did say ``Obey the Quran and obey Muhammed, there would, in fact, be no redundancy.

It comes down to this, dimwit: The use of the word ``AND``. I`ve already pointed this out, and used YOUR interpretation in my allegory. Apparently, some minds are impervious to reason.

PM:
The crux of the debate CPRed by, of all people, the Pope....his poor judgment notwithstanding........ and that was about Faith & Reason.

Now humans are neither logical, nor illogical & are quite capable of being both at one time, at different times, or not at all.

Humans, handicapped by their worst discoveries & inventions viz: language and writing
( & now the ``MEDIA``) have benefitted or suffered, only Time will tell.

and you PM, the fundamentalist Orthodox Platonian & Kantian, I presume , a human.

Maybe because of this lingo terrorism a word should or must be invented for this amazing human faculty.

Let me dare to coin a few: ParaLogical? Cardilogo?( Heart + Logic)...

What do you say?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This would shed a bit more light on the issue.
::::::::::::::

INTERNATIONAL
09.25.2006 Monday - ISTANBUL 05:58


Pope Didn`t Read the Whole Book he Quoted

Sunday, September 24, 2006

zaman.com

While reactions toward Pope Benedict continue for the offensive remarks he said about Islam, an interesting detail has come to surface about the book that the pope quoted.

The pope extracted specific parts of the book “A Debate with a Muslim,” which was against Islam.

The pope said that he quoted the parts in question to prompt dialogue among religions.

Yet, the author of the book, Adel-Theodore Khoury, said that these expressions were “an obstacle against dialogue.”

The book, examined by Zaman, deals with a debate between Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologue II and an Islamic cleric.

While the Byzantine emperor utters remarks against Islam, the Islamic counters his remarks. He said that the religions brought by Jesus and Moses were distorted later on and the actual irrationality was in Manuel’s belief.

The remarks of the emperor that the pope quoted are severely criticized in the book by the author.

Zaman found the book that the pope made a quote from the dusty shelves of the Sorbonne University Library.

The book handles the discussions in the winter of 1391 between Manuel Paleologue II and an Islamic cleric who is claimed to be Haci Bayram-I Veli.

The work at issue is a book version of Khoury’s thesis presented to Lyon University in 1966.

The thesis is about the debates on Christianity and Islam that Manuel had with an Islamic cleric in Ankara. A few years after Manuel’s debates, Khoury examined these debates in nine different chapters. The seventh chapter was quoted by the pope.

In the seventh debate, where the issue of reason is discussed, Manuel and the Islamic cleric try to convince each other that their religion is more rational.

Manuel attacks Islam by saying, “Show me just what Muhammad that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith… and this is irrational.”

The Islamic cleric tried to explain the Islamic view. He said that Muslims believed in Jesus and Moses; however, the religions brought by these prophets were distorted later on, showing that the actual irrationality was in Manuel’s belief. The pope quoted sentences from these arguments that Manuel used in this debate.

In his analysis, Khoury revealed that during the debate, the parts “closed themselves in their own doctrine” and categorically refused the counter part, pointed out it prevents dialogue by converting the debate to monologue.

In his 237-page thesis, he mercilessly criticized this “monologue” in nine pages addressed to the present regarding the conditions of the inter-religious dialogue.

Khoury thought it was impossible to dialogue unless one tried to understand the opposing party. The only way is to be open to the other person.

He said that the only common ground on which people could come together was reason; however, Manuel and the Isamic cleric were using theological reason.

He continued: “What is needed is a common agreement and a common language,” adding that application of the mind would otherwise be an “illusion,” a trap which Manuel fell into.

Assuming that Manuel and the Islamic cleric became captive of their own judgment and doctrines, which Khoury believed, is not caused by bad faith or insincerity. He suggested that the problem was a “lack of consideration”.

Manuel, Anti-Catholic Emperor

Ignoring the analysis quoted from the book, Benedict XVI brought Manuel’s statements to the forefront centuries later. Khoury indicated how the inter-religious dialogue failed to be performed through the aforementioned debate.

Meanwhile, the 14th-century Byzantine emperor abhorred the Catholic Church, of which Pope Benedict is the spiritual leader. Manuel Paleologue II, known as an intellectual interested in philosophy and literature,

Advocated the Orthodox doctrine against the Catholic Church, Manuel continuously refused the West’s suggestions to submit to the pope, even though he was helpless against the Ottomans.

Religious History Professor Omer Faruk Harman assumes that pope’s quotation from Manuel’s statements released “a symbolic message,” even though the pope is opposed to his doctrine.

PM writes << See, dimwit, let me make it really simple for you: Suppose I bring you an epistle from my king, which I have only memorised, for reasons of security. If I then say that the king has also said to convey to you that you are to follow HIM (in what I recite) AND follow my every word as relates to the epistle, well, that is what you call being redundant. >>>

It is quite clear to people here that not only can`t you comprehend simple statements, you beat around the bush, repeat falshood and try to throw in absurdities like diverting the topic to the compilation of the Quran and all this to try to prove that your Ad Hominem against the prophet is valid argument against the Quran when the Quran places complete seperation between message and the personality of the messenger. Your epistle story is similarly pathetically ignorant. The Quran talks about obeying the messenger whose ONLY role as messenger is to deliver the message for the simple reason that you cannot obey God, who does not talk directly to people, without obeying the message which comes through a messenger. Nowhere does the QUran say obey Muhammed or obey Jesus, on the contrary they are directed to convey that they only convey what they receive and cannot invent things of their own. Now I have stated these simple things many times over and every time you come up with nonsense tales.

It should be very clear to people here why he is doing this, for the purpose of supporting an illogical argumentation technique of Ad Hominem against the prophet to dismiss the message as a result.

Next, consider these explicit verses that tell in plain terms that Ad Hominem arguments against the prophet is no disproof of the message because there is complete separation between the personality of a messenger and the message he delivers:


[34.50] Say: If I err, I err only against my own soul, and if I follow a right direction, it is because of what my Lord reveals to me; surely He is Hearing, Nigh

Further since the prophet and his companions belonged to earlier generations, their judgment or what they did or did not do is not our concern, our concern is the message of God, i.e. the Quran:

[2.134] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.

[2.141] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.

Next, if you want to talk about redundancy, which does not apply in this case, let us talk about the oft repeated copy pasted genealogies in the Bible and the four gospels that repeat more or less the same story with contradictions thrown all over the place

Quiet please. Scientists at work. :-)

re. zeemax #269 :
Just FYI, since you asked:
In that fairytale, which is on a par in terms of absurdity with the Qur`anic version of Jesus` exit from the world (you know that one, right?) Mary M did not actually witness the resurrection, though she is credited with being the first one to see the resurrected Jesus.

In one of those amazingly incredulous passages (except, of course, to believers, to whom even Immculate Conceptions (that is, conception without sex) is quite believable) of the Gospel, Mary M actually has a conversation with the ressurected Jesus without realizing it is him. There is a suggestion that it was misty and she couldn`t really see him well. Hello? Was she audibly challenged??

re. ``To me, christianity and all this stuff of 1=3 and 3=1 is a load of crap.``

Tell me about it man! Angels/devils/gods who send prophets/prophets who have special allowances/immaculate conceptions!!! What next!!

re. masadi #267
``There is absolutely no redundancy, you cannot claim to obey Allah and reject the messenger because Allah is speaking through the messenger, which makes obeying the messenger (rasool) not a redundancy but a necessity``

Dimwit, it is precisely because, or IF, obeying the messenger is a necessity that the statement ``Obey Allah AND the Messenger`` becomes a redundancy.

But I understand that Islamists follow a different brand of logic altogether, in which the meanings of words like `AND` can be twisted out of their Boolean functionality altogether.

See, dimwit, let me make it really simple for you: Suppose I bring you an epistle from my king, which I have only memorised, for reasons of security. If I then say that the king has also said to convey to you that you are to follow HIM (in what I recite) AND follow my every word as relates to the epistle, well, that is what you call being redundant.

Comprende, Amigo?

``... the mischief caused otherwise is clearly evident in Christianity where all kinds of damn fools compare God directly talks to them and they all are going in different directions but all headed towards heaven.``

er.. when, exactly did we start debating the gobblydegook in Christianity. Trust me, I can write a book on that. And also on how insane it is for Islam to suggest that ``The Christians are people of the book`` ... ``and are not to be converted`` -- as if it wasn`t ``known`` at the time of the writing of the Qur`an that the Christians had, presumably, strayed from the original message. And it`s even more laughable that Islam bought into that most illogical of all Chritian doctrines.. the Immaculate Conception.

``Don`t waste my time with repeating nonsense if you cannot comprehend simple words that carry meanings.``

Actaully, I the only thing I can`t understand is how you are able to twist simple things with such sophistic skill and still imagine you`re being honest. Then again, the ways of the believer are probably too complex for a rational mind to wrap itself around.

see what I mean.
Zeemax is the alter ego of Masadi.
what Masadi, cannot say publicly, zeemax sayz it. Its the old MO. (I mean 267, followed by 269 and 270).

sad, sad, What a pity!

I mean ... entire christianity is based on resurrection ... but noone saw it except Mary Magdelene .... why? Was Mary Magdalene a prophet as well? And where`s she in Christianity?

To me, christianity and all this stuff of 1=3 and 3=1 is a load of crap.